Sleeper transactions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description only needs to add behavior beyond safety. It adds the default week window and the completed/pending scope, but it does not clarify what 'resolve' means or how the status maps to Sleeper exact values; this keeps it at a 3.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads operation and resource, the second gives the default range. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation facts: league scope, optional week range with defaults, and transaction/status categories. It is slightly less complete around exact status strings and response contents, but the annotations and schema cover the remaining safety and required-parameter details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 40%, and the description compensates by mapping week range to start_week/end_week with a default, explaining completed/pending as status scope, and listing trades/waivers/free-agent moves for the types enum. It does not specify inclusiveness of start/end weeks or exact status strings, so not a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete operation ('get and resolve') on a specific resource ('transaction records'), spells out the three transaction categories, and scopes by league and week range. This clearly separates it from siblings such as roster, matchups, and trade_context tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling tool is referenced. The only operational hint is the default week range, which helps invocation but does not help an agent decide between this and sleeper_trade_context or other league data tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.